DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. This is in response to communication filed on 1/16/25 in which claims 1-20 are pending.
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
3. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/029637 in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0359008 to Wang. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim the same invention of transmitting a request frame that request setting up a quality of service (QOS) to an access point.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
U.S. Application No. 19/029637
U.S. Application No. 19/025279
1. A first station (STA) in a wireless network, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to cause: transmitting, to an access point (AP), a request frame that requests a setup of a quality of service (QoS) flow for a second STA's peer to peer (P2P) traffic, the request frame including i) one or more QoS parameters associated with the QoS flow and ii) a field indicating a type of request frame; and receiving, from the AP, a response frame in response to the request frame.
1.A first station (STA) in a wireless network, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to cause: transmitting, to an access point (AP), a first request frame that requests the AP to establish a quality of service (QoS) flow for a second STA, the first request frame including QoS parameters associated with the QoS flow; and receiving, from the AP, a first response frame in response to the first request frame.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Wang (See paragraph [0067, 0131 and 0180]) of a field indicating a type of request frame in order to satisfy QOS across the overlapping basic service set.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-2, 7, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2023/0246970 to Canpolat et al.
a. As per claim 1, Canpolat et al teaches a first station (STA) in a wireless network (See paragraph [0020]), comprising: a memory (See paragraph [0028, 0042-0043]); and a processor coupled to the memory (See paragraph [0028, 0042-0043]), the processor configured to cause: transmitting, to an access point (AP), a first request frame that request the AP to establish a quality of service (QOS) flow for a second STA, the first request frame including QOS parameters associated with the QOS flow (See paragraph [0238], the E2E QoS information, of an E2E traffic flow from a first STA (STA-1), e.g., implemented by device 140, to a second STA (STA-2), e.g., implemented by device 150, may be obtained by both the STA-1 and the STA-2, for example, by sending individual SCS setup request frames to an AP); and receiving, from the AP, a first response frame in response to the first request frame (See paragraph [0320], the AP may transmit an SCS response 822 to the STA-1).
b. As per claim 7, Canpolat et al teaches An access point (AP) in a wireless network, comprising: a memory (see paragraph [0042-0043]); and a processor coupled to the memory (See paragraph [0042-0043]), the processor configured to cause: receiving, from a first station (STA), a first request frame that requests the AP to establish a quality of service (QoS) flow for a second STA, the first request frame including QoS parameters associated with the QoS flow (See paragraph [0238], the E2E QoS information, of an E2E traffic flow from a first STA (STA-1), e.g., implemented by device 140, to a second STA (STA-2), e.g., implemented by device 150, may be obtained by both the STA-1 and the STA-2, for example, by sending individual SCS setup request frames to an AP) (See paragraph [0312-0313], QOS characteristics element); transmitting, to the first STA, a first response frame in response to the first request frame (See paragraph [0320], the AP may transmit an SCS response 822 to the STA-1); and establishing the QoS flow for the second STA based on the QoS parameters included in the first request frame (See paragraph [0238]).
c. As per claim 15, Canpolat et al teaches a method performed by a first station (STA) in a wireless network, the method comprising: transmitting, to an access point (AP), a first request frame that requests the AP to establish a quality of service (QoS) flow for a second STA, the first request frame including QoS parameters associated with the QoS flow (See paragraph [0238], the E2E QoS information, of an E2E traffic flow from a first STA (STA-1), e.g., implemented by device 140, to a second STA (STA-2), e.g., implemented by device 150, may be obtained by both the STA-1 and the STA-2, for example, by sending individual SCS setup request frames to an AP) (See paragraph [0312-0313], QOS characteristics element); and receiving, from the AP, a first response frame in response to the first request frame (See paragraph [0320], the AP may transmit an SCS response 822 to the STA-1).
d. As per claims 2 and 16, Canpolat et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Canpolat et al teaches wherein the processor is further configured to cause: transmitting, to the AP, a declaration frame indicating that the second STA authorizes the first STA to establish the QoS flow on behalf of the second STA (See paragraph [0161], devices 102, 140 and/or 150 may be configured to utilize an SCS setup request frame from a STA to carry additional information, for example, the E2E QoS information, e.g., an overall latency bound, which may allow a recipient of the SCS setup request frame, to determine an overall QoS requirement of a QoS stream).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2023/0246970 to Canpolat et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0064633 to Jia et al.
a. As per claims 3 and 17, Canpolat et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Canpolat et al fails to teach wherein the declaration frame includes a list of identifiers for one or more STAs, including the second STA.
Jia et al teaches wherein the declaration frame includes a list of identifiers for one or more STAs, including the second STA (See paragraph [0056], the AP sends a TWT signal frame 305-a that includes a service list that identifies STAs).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Jia et al in the claimed invention of Canpolat et al in order to identify the STAs in the system.
7. Claims 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2023/0246970 to Canpolat et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0359008 to Wang et al.
a. As per claim 4, Canpolat et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Canpolat et al fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to cause: transmitting, to the second STA, a second request frame that requests permission to establish the QoS flow on behalf of the second STA; and receiving, from the second STA, a second response frame that indicates permission to establish the QoS flow on behalf of the second STA.
Wang et al teaches wherein the processor is further configured to cause: transmitting, to the second STA, a second request frame that requests permission to establish the QoS flow on behalf of the second STA; and receiving, from the second STA, a second response frame that indicates permission to establish the QoS flow on behalf of the second STA (See paragraph [0206-0208]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Wang et al in the claimed invention of Canpolat et al in order to satisfy QOS across the overlapping basic service set.
b. As per claims 5, Canpolat et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Canpolat et al fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to cause: transmitting, to the AP, the first request frame that requests the AP to establish QoS flows for a group of one or more second STAs, the first request frame includes QoS parameters associated with the QoS flow for the group; and receiving, from the AP, the first response frame in response to the first request frame.
Wang et al teaches wherein the processor is configured to cause: transmitting, to the AP, the first request frame that requests the AP to establish QoS flows for a group of one or more second STAs, the first request frame includes QoS parameters associated with the QoS flow for the group; and receiving, from the AP, the first response frame in response to the first request frame (See paragraph [0097 and 0104]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Wang et al in the claimed invention of Canpolat et al in order to satisfy QOS across the overlapping basic service set.
c. As per claims 6, 13 and 20, Canpolat et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Canpolat et al fails to teach wherein the first request frame includes an identifier for the group of the one or more second STAs.
Wang et al teaches wherein the first request frame includes an identifier for the group of the one or more second STAs (See paragraph [0130 and 0138]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Wang et al in the claimed invention of Canpolat et al in order to satisfy QOS across the overlapping basic service set.
d. As per claim 8, Canpolat et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Canpolat et al fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to cause: receiving, from the first STA, a declaration frame indicating that the second STA has authorized the first STA to establish the QoS flow on behalf of the second STA.
Wang et al teaches wherein the processor is further configured to cause: receiving, from the first STA, a declaration frame indicating that the second STA has authorized the first STA to establish the QoS flow on behalf of the second STA (See paragraph [0202]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Wang et al in the claimed invention of Canpolat et al in order to satisfy QOS across the overlapping basic service set.
e. As per claims 9, Canpolat et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Canpolat et al fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to cause: receiving, from the second STA, a declaration frame indicating that the second STA has authorized the first STA to establish the QoS flow on behalf of the second STA.
Wang et al teaches wherein the processor is further configured to cause: receiving, from the second STA, a declaration frame indicating that the second STA has authorized the first STA to establish the QoS flow on behalf of the second STA (See paragraph [0208 and 0214]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Wang et al in the claimed invention of Canpolat et al in order to satisfy QOS across the overlapping basic service set.
f. AS per claim 10, Canpolat et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Canpolat et al fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to cause: transmitting, to the second STA, a verification request frame to verify whether the second STA has authorized the first STA to establish the QoS flow on behalf of the second STA; and receiving, from the second STA, a verification response frame to confirm that the second STA has authorized the first STA to establish the QoS flow on behalf of the second STA
Wang et al teaches transmitting, to the second STA, a verification request frame to verify whether the second STA has authorized the first STA to establish the QoS flow on behalf of the second STA; and receiving, from the second STA, a verification response frame to confirm that the second STA has authorized the first STA to establish the QoS flow on behalf of the second STA (See paragraph [0208 and 0214]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Wang et al in the claimed invention of Canpolat et al in order to satisfy QOS across the overlapping basic service set.
g. As per claim 12, Canpolat et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Canpolat et al fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to cause:2receiving, from the AP, the first request frame that requests the AP to establish QoS flows for a group of one or more second STAs, the first request frame includes QoS parameters associated with the QoS flow for the group; and transmitting, to the AP, the first response frame in response to the first request frame.
Wang et al teaches wherein the processor is configured to cause:2receiving, from the AP, the first request frame that requests the AP to establish QoS flows for a group of one or more second STAs, the first request frame includes QoS parameters associated with the QoS flow for the group; and transmitting, to the AP, the first response frame in response to the first request frame (See paragraph [0098 and 0193-0194]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Wang et al in the claimed invention of Canpolat et al in order to satisfy QOS across the overlapping basic service set.
h. As per claim 14, Canpolat et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Canpolat et al fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to cause: allocating, to the group of the one or more second STAs, a transmission opportunity (TXOP) in response to the first request frame.
Wang et al teaches allocating, to the group of the one or more second STAs, a transmission opportunity (TXOP) in response to the first request frame (See paragraph [0071-0072 and 0206-0207]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Wang et al in the claimed invention of Canpolat et al in order to satisfy QOS across the overlapping basic service set.
i. As per claim 18, Canpolat et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Canpolat et al fails to teach transmitting, to the second STA, a second request frame that requests permission to establish the QoS flow on behalf of the second STA; and receiving, from the second STA, a second response frame that indicates permission to establish the QoS flow on behalf of the second STA.
Wang et al teaches transmitting, to the second STA, a second request frame that requests permission to establish the QoS flow on behalf of the second STA; and receiving, from the second STA, a second response frame that indicates permission to establish the QoS flow on behalf of the second STA (See paragraph [0098 and 0193-0194]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Wang et al in the claimed invention of Canpolat et al in order to satisfy QOS across the overlapping basic service set.
j. As per claim 19, Canpolat et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Canpolat et al fails to teach transmitting, to the AP, the first request frame that requests the AP to establish QoS flows for a group of one or more second STAs, the first request frame including QoS parameters associated with the QoS flow for the group; and receiving, from the AP, the first response frame in response to the first request frame.
Wang et al teaches transmitting, to the AP, the first request frame that requests the AP to establish QoS flows for a group of one or more second STAs, the first request frame including QoS parameters associated with the QoS flow for the group; and receiving, from the AP, the first response frame in response to the first request frame (See paragraph [0097 and 0151-0152]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Wang et al in the claimed invention of Canpolat et al in order to satisfy QOS across the overlapping basic service set.
8. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable U.S. Publication No. 2023/0246970 to Canpolat et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0359008 to Wang et al
as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0064633 to Jia et al.
a. As per claims 11, Canpolat et al in view of Wang teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Canpolat et al fails to teach wherein the declaration frame includes a list of identifiers for one or more STAs, including the second STA.
Jia et al teaches wherein the declaration frame includes a list of identifiers for one or more STAs, including the second STA (See paragraph [0056], the AP sends a TWT signal frame 305-a that includes a service list that identifies STAs).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Jia et al in the claimed invention of Canpolat et al in order to identify the STAs in the system.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication No. 2006/0252443 to Sammour et al teaches Method and System for Efficient Addressing and power savings in wireless systems.
U.S. Publication No. 2016/0330714 to Hedayat teaches multiplexing Acknowledgement messages in response to Downlink Frames.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJENANE BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3878. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DJENANE M BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights